Sunday, September 13, 2015

Why I Don´t Say “Third-World”: Some Notes on Language

Global North in blue, Global South in red

This month, Mount McKinley, the United States´ highest
mountain, officially became Mount Denali, a name native Alaskans have been
using for centuries.

Many U.S. Americans likely registered this news with little
more than a blink. “Mount McKinly,” named in 1917 for the the Ohioan president
who was killed in office, was a good enough name for those of us who had little
connection with the mountain or the state. But to the people who knew and loved
the monument as “Denali,” who saw the renaming as another example of erasing
indigenous culture, the change mattered a great deal.

This illustrates a point – the names we use to describe our
world matter tremendously, especially when we are using names that we have
invented. Terminology that seems innocuous to us may be deeply insensitive to
the very people we are trying to describe.

Another example – I am currently living in a country that
others would call a “Third-World” or even an “underdeveloped” country”. People use
these terms freely and interchangeably as a short-hand for countries that
generally have less infrastructure, lower incomes, and lower standards of
living. They do not use them maliciously. However, offense need not be intended
to be felt.

The words we use reflect values regardless of whether or not
we realize it. In a search not just for dignity but also for accuracy, I want
to briefly describe some of the most common terms for countries like the one I
am from and the one I currently live in.

First-World / Third-World
Country

Where it comes from:

During the Cold War, “Third
World” referred to countries who were unaligned with either North American and
European countries (the “First World”) or the Soviet Union and allies such as
China (the “Second World”). Because non-aligned countries tended to be ones
with less political clout and fewer material resources, the term “Third World”
soon became synonymous with poverty, especially as new aid and development
programs adopted the term.

Why people don´t use it:

In short – this term is
meaningless. Social, cultural, and political realms have changed such that any
distinction based on a country´s alliances in the mid-20th century is an
arbitrary and nonsensical distinction today. Technically, wealthy nations such
as Finland, Brazil, or Saudi Arabia that stayed neutral during the Cold War ear
are “Third-World,” while countries like Cuba fall under the little-used term “Second
World.”

The second reason to
drop the term is semantic. Today, “Third-World” doesn´t summon up ideas of
political alliances, but it does recall terms like “third-class,” “third place,”
or “third-rate.” This type of terminology makes it sound as if countries have
been placed into a ranking system that the United States and Europe (“First-World”,
“first place”) already dominates.

Developed / Underdeveloped
Country

Where it comes from:

While a marked improvement from “backward,” colonialists
previous term for countries unlike their own, “underdeveloped” nonetheless reflects
the same perceptions that certain benchmarks of development (e.g. free markets,
infrastructure) could not only be measured, but could be prescribed. Quite simply, countries that met these benchmarks were "developed," while countries that did not, remained underdeveloped.

Why people don´t use
it:

This term divided countries into two categories based on
whether or not they had achieved sufficient benchmarks crucial to “development,”
yet both those benchmarks and the overall vision of development was defined by
Europeans and U.S. Americans.

Not only is the distinction ethnocentric (based on the idea
of one particular culture as superior to others), but the term itself is
condescending. It describes nations by their deficits and defines them by what
they lack. Neither is the term specific. With no concrete cut-offs, “Developed
Nations” easily becomes code for “European and European-heritage nations,” a
code that perpetuates the myth that power, culture, and advancement comes in
only one style.

Developed / Developing
Country

Where it comes from:

This slight change from “Developed/Underdeveloped” attempts
to describe states as actors rather than by a static state. Instead of
viewing nations as falling into one of two categories, it instead sees them
along a continuum where some are simply farther along.

Why people don´t use
it:

This is a common term even today. However, it still does not
solve the problematic idea that all nations are following the same trajectory
towards the same inevitable, and preferred, end. The term also makes “developed
nations” sound as if they have already arrived at this ideal, something anyone
working against poverty and injustice in the U.S. can attest against.

Majority World / Minority World

Where it comes from:

Two-thirds of the world´s population lives in poverty. The
term “Majority World,” (also called the “two-thirds world” as a response to the
term “Third-World”) attempts to flip the focus of development from the wealthy
few to the struggling majority.

Why people don´t use
it:

While I´ve noticed this term is popular among smaller NGOs
and nonprofits, it has not caught on officially. Because the term is somewhat
vague and not yet well-known, people seem to have avoided it in political and
scholarly contexts.

Global North / Global
South

Where it comes from:

These terms, which are the current default among scholars
and professionals, are based on nothing more than the observation that most
countries north of the equator have relatively high incomes and standards of
living, while many countries south of the equator have lower incomes and
standards of living.

Why people don´t use
it:

Of all the terms, this is least likely to be understood by
someone outside the international development field. Also, the distinction is somewhat
arbitrary, with geographically-southern countries like Australia forming part
of the Global North and geographically-northern countries like Kazakhstan or
Mongolia forming part of the Global South.

So…?

There are more terms I didn´t write about (Core/Periphery,
Resource Poor/Rich, Lower/Middle Income, etc.) and they have their own faults
and merits.

Personally, “Third-World” and “underdeveloped” make me
cringe, though “developing” seems a common descriptor even for people
describing their own countries. While I acknowledge the jargonyness of Global
North and Global South, after four years of reading and writing papers on
international development, they´re the terms that I am probably most
comfortable with.

But I´ve also been encouraged to examine my statements and
see if I really mean to place two-thirds of the world under a single signifier.
If I really mean countries with low GDP per capita, I may use that
distinguisher explicitly. If I am talking, instead, about legal infrastructure
that creates meaningful rule of law, being explicit about that will describe an entirely different collection of countries.

Whatever terms I use, I use carefully. I am aware how much value
and meaning rests in a single word or term, and I want my language to be as
honoring as it is precise.

(Sometimes once you´ve finished writing something you find
something eerily similar! If you´re interested in an NPR blog on the same topic,
I´d recommend this
one.)